3 ms·

Why not Java EE? Everything out of the box. Tried, proven, standardized. Well suited for startups: http://www.adam-bien.com/roller/abien/entry/a_java_ee_startu

Why not Java EE? Everything out of the box. Tried, proven, standardized. Well suited for startups: http://www.adam-bien.com/roller/abien/entry/a_java_ee_startup_getting http://www.adam-bien.com/roller/abien/entry/a_java_ee_startu...

pjmlp 11y ago
Because apparently it is not cool stuff that works instead of shinny toys.
smegel 11y ago
> Everything out of the box. Everything except that special sauce called green threads (or goroutines). They are quite popular these days for good reason - callbacks suck.
- anewhnaccount 11y ago
  This comment is quite ironic considering Java originally only had green threads.
- pron 11y ago
  Blatant self-promotion here, but Java's got fibers (aka lightweight threads, aka goroutines), too: https://github.com/puniverse/quasar https://github.com/puniverse/quasar BTW, I don't like the term green threads because they have a connotation of being scheduled onto a single OS threads, while fibers/lightweight threads employ parallelism.
zerr 11y ago
Or C#/F#/.NET
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
fennecfoxen 11y ago
Ah, yes, Java... the language that doesn't have niceties like hash literals, so the ecosystem adopted XML instead, and you'd use complex difficult-to-debug XML documents to metaprogram your frameworks because it was actually the least-painful way of doing things. (It's moved on slightly: annotations are the new XML. cough Jersey cough) I mean, there's plenty of good stuff too, but... let's just not pretend that it's a choice without downsides, shall we?
- benmccann 11y ago
  You can use XML in any language. No one forces you to use XML in Java. Yes, if you choose a crufty framework like J2EE or Spring then they'll use lots of XML. But you can just as easily choose a modern tools like Guice or Play Framework and not be forced to configure everything in XML.
  - fennecfoxen 11y ago
    > You can use XML in any language. Ironically, Java actually ends up being one of the better languages for that; there end up being a lot of gaps in some of the others. Just a $0.02 example: Ruby tools like Nori and Crack that are designed to make idiomatic Ruby structures out of XML but have fundamental flaws in how they handle niceties like namespaces. (Nori can strip them out, or you can leave them in place as the short-name string, but you can't normalize a given namespace URI to a given string, so good luck if some tool that was sending you xmlns:ns0, xmlns:ns1, xmlns:ns2, etc starts messing up the order. I'd consider making a pull request, but chose to leave tech debt in that part of the stack instead.) > Yes, if you choose a crufty framework like J2EE I do believe that using J2EE was exactly the suggestion of the GP, unless there is a subtlety in the usage that I got wrong (I understand the 2 has been dropped in later EEs). And are the ones you suggest "tried, proven, standardized" like I was pitched? And the cruftiness of the standardized framework is the even-more-fundamental answer to the original question of why-not-Java: it's not strictly because you can't do things with it well or quickly, it's because it has a crufty reputation.

pjmlp 11y ago

Because apparently it is not cool stuff that works instead of shinny toys.

smegel 11y ago

> Everything out of the box. Everything except that special sauce called green threads (or goroutines). They are quite popular these days for good reason - callbacks suck.

anewhnaccount 11y ago
This comment is quite ironic considering Java originally only had green threads.
pron 11y ago
Blatant self-promotion here, but Java's got fibers (aka lightweight threads, aka goroutines), too: https://github.com/puniverse/quasar https://github.com/puniverse/quasar BTW, I don't like the term green threads because they have a connotation of being scheduled onto a single OS threads, while fibers/lightweight threads employ parallelism.

zerr 11y ago

Or C#/F#/.NET

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

fennecfoxen 11y ago

Ah, yes, Java... the language that doesn't have niceties like hash literals, so the ecosystem adopted XML instead, and you'd use complex difficult-to-debug XML documents to metaprogram your frameworks because it was actually the least-painful way of doing things. (It's moved on slightly: annotations are the new XML. cough Jersey cough) I mean, there's plenty of good stuff too, but... let's just not pretend that it's a choice without downsides, shall we?

benmccann 11y ago
You can use XML in any language. No one forces you to use XML in Java. Yes, if you choose a crufty framework like J2EE or Spring then they'll use lots of XML. But you can just as easily choose a modern tools like Guice or Play Framework and not be forced to configure everything in XML.
- fennecfoxen 11y ago
  > You can use XML in any language. Ironically, Java actually ends up being one of the better languages for that; there end up being a lot of gaps in some of the others. Just a $0.02 example: Ruby tools like Nori and Crack that are designed to make idiomatic Ruby structures out of XML but have fundamental flaws in how they handle niceties like namespaces. (Nori can strip them out, or you can leave them in place as the short-name string, but you can't normalize a given namespace URI to a given string, so good luck if some tool that was sending you xmlns:ns0, xmlns:ns1, xmlns:ns2, etc starts messing up the order. I'd consider making a pull request, but chose to leave tech debt in that part of the stack instead.) > Yes, if you choose a crufty framework like J2EE I do believe that using J2EE was exactly the suggestion of the GP, unless there is a subtlety in the usage that I got wrong (I understand the 2 has been dropped in later EEs). And are the ones you suggest "tried, proven, standardized" like I was pitched? And the cruftiness of the standardized framework is the even-more-fundamental answer to the original question of why-not-Java: it's not strictly because you can't do things with it well or quickly, it's because it has a crufty reputation.